Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: AG Sessions Reinstates Civil Asset Forfeiture (7/19 Article)

  1. #1

    AG Sessions Reinstates Civil Asset Forfeiture (7/19 Article)

    Boy what a great pick he was... he's really constitutional! I'm tellin ya! He LOVES the Constitution! Except for the 4th amendment, just takings clause, due process, personal property, innocent until proven guilty, etc etc....

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sessions...ce-department/

    Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Justin Amash, Ted Cruz, and others have already come out against this and think it will die in court as it does not pass Constitutional muster.

    The Justice Department announced their plans to reinstate the use of asset forfeiture, especially for drug suspects -- making it easier for local law enforcement to seize cash and property from crime suspects and reap the proceeds.

    The practice has been criticized because it allows law enforcement to take possessions — such as cars and money — without indictments or evidence a crime has been committed.

    "Civil asset forfeiture is a key tool that helps law enforcement help defund organized crime, prevents new crime from committed and weakens the criminals and cartels," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said on Wednesday announcing the revived DOJ policy.

    Sessions said these seizures help weaken criminal organizations by taking away their funding, returning property back to victims of crime, as well as give funds back to law enforcement officials by allocating the assets toward new vehicles, vests and police training.

    "Funds being used to take lives are now being used to save lives," said Sessions.

    CBS News' Paula Reid reports that 24 states have passed laws limiting the practice, but local law enforcement can get around those restrictions by giving seized assets to the federal government instead of returning them to their owners. This practice is called "adoption" and it's been used to seize almost $1 billion in assets over the last decade.

    A change would likely represent another reversal by Sessions of Obama-era Justice Department policies. His Democratic predecessor Eric Holder had tightened control of the department's asset forfeiture operations amid concerns that property could be seized without judicial oversight and without the owner ever being charged with a crime.

    Holder namely restricted the ability of the federal government to take possession of, or adopt, assets seized by local authorities, who could then share in the proceeds with their federal counterparts. Civil liberties groups and some members of Congress praised the move as a step toward reform because that practice made it easier for local authorities to circumvent state laws that were sometimes stricter than the federal ones governing seizures.

    Sessions acknowledged criticism of the policy on Wednesday, saying that as the DOJ encourages civil forfeiture whenever appropriate, "we must protect the rights of law abiding people whose property is used without their consent."

    He noted that the federal government will not adopt seized property unless the state involved provides information demonstrating that the seizure was justified form the beginning with probable cause.

    Sessions added that there will be enhanced training on asset forfeiture laws, noting that the depart will adopt smaller seizures of cash only if there exists some level of criminality.

    President Donald Trump himself was in favor of asset forfeiture, discussing the topic with sheriff's around the country back in February.

    "So asset forfeiture, we're gonna go back on. I mean how simple can anything be. You all agree with that I think? I mean do you even understand the other side on that?" Mr. Trump said at White House roundtable event.

    As Mr. Trump questioned members of the roundtable if legislation or an executive order would be needed "to put that back in business" a sheriff replied the law enforcement community just needed a sign of encouragement from the administration .

    "Okay, good, you're encouraged! I love that answer. That's better than signing executive orders and then these people take it and say oh, it's so terrible. You're encouraged! Asset forfeiture, you're encouraged," Mr. Trump replied.

    Sen. Mike Lee of Utah released a statement on the policy changes Wednesday afternoon, saying "Instead of revising forfeiture practices in a manner to better protect Americans' due process rights, the DOJ seems determined to lose in court before it changes its policies for the better."


    Lee noted that he encouraged the agency to review its policies on forfeiture in a letter sent to DOJ back in May along with Sens. Paul, Crapo Udall, Heinrich and King. The letter read, in part, that DOJ "need not wait for Supreme Court censure before reforming [civil asset forfeiture] practices" and encouraging DOJ "to revise its civil asset forfeiture practices to reflect our nation's commitment to the rule of law and due process."


    The Justice Department sees the assets forfeiture program as a way to strip suspects of the proceeds of their activities, to deter crime and to compensate crime victims. An effort to expand it is in keeping with Sessions' tough-on-crime agenda, which he continued to espouse during Monday's speech.

    He again implored prosecutors to pursue the toughest punishments against most crime suspects, echoing a directive he issued earlier this year to U.S. attorneys. He reiterated his top priorities: cracking down on illegal immigration and quashing violent crime. Sessions stressed the need to tackle gang activity, pointing to cities such as Minneapolis, where data show a recent uptick in violent crime. And he encouraged prosecutors to go after drug offenders, because "drug offenses are not nonviolent crimes, as most of you all know."
    Last edited by jllundqu; 07-19-2017 at 11:54 AM.
    There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
    -Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,
    Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
    Author of, War is a Racket!

    It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
    - Diogenes of Sinope



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
    -Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,
    Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
    Author of, War is a Racket!

    It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
    - Diogenes of Sinope

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by jllundqu View Post
    Boy what a great pick he was... he's really constitutional! I'm tellin ya! He LOVES the Constitution! Except for the 4th amendment, just takings clause, due process, personal property, innocent until proven guilty, etc etc....

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sessions...ce-department/

    Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Justin Amash, Ted Cruz, and others have already come out against this and think it will die in court as it does not pass Constitutional muster.
    We are no longer innocent until proven guilty. We are guilty and will never prove our innocence, period.

    We used to be innocent until proven guilty but not anymore. If you cannot afford a lawyer then good luck trying to prove your innocence when you proceed in forma pauperis and are told to prove your innocence you will have to pay thousands of dollars to prove your innocence to not be found guilty by a Jury. That is why so many people take guilty plea agreements even if they are innocent and can prove it with evidence. Evidence doesn't matter when your poor.

    Did you hear about Brian's FOIA lawsuit and the evidence that he was presenting? He wasn't allowed to see his criminal case discovery until after he was convicted then his lawyer threatened to destroy the discovery evidence of his case and refuses to let him prove his innocence in a 2255 Motion to vacate his sentence, the U.S. Attorney presented a liar on the stand, they lied, they cheated, they robbed him of his right to have witnesses to testify, they robbed him of his right to prove his innocence.

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ent-corruption

    After what I have read in his case and seen what has happened to Brian, the U.S. Department of (in)Justice can go straight to hell with the demons and the devil. The corrupt U.S. Attorney of Greensboro can also go straight to hell including Anand Prakash Ramaswamy and Cheryl Sloan. They all can go straight to hell for violating the criminal code, violating the U.S. Constitution, and violating the rules they were apart of setting up and/or enforcing.

    The Justice Department of the United States is the most corrupt agency I have ever seen.
    Last edited by Stanleybolten; 07-19-2017 at 05:08 PM.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanleybolten View Post
    We are no longer innocent until proven guilty. We are guilty and will never prove our innocence, period.

  6. #5
    ... and seein' how we're all probably breaking laws we don't even know exist, it's just a matter of time before they come & just take everything by decree.


    Don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07-20-2017, 11:41 AM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-18-2017, 10:53 AM
  3. OK SB 838 - Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform
    By Okie RP fan in forum Oklahoma
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-11-2016, 03:43 PM
  4. Sen. Mike Lee on Civil Asset Forfeiture
    By Brian4Liberty in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-27-2015, 06:34 AM
  5. Civil Asset Forfeiture: This is Pernicious Stuff
    By Brian4Liberty in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-01-2015, 01:09 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •